Your numbers are off. PQ still has fifty one seats. ADQ only has four seats because Eric Caire and Marc Picard are sitting as independants. Also, Liberals only have sixty-five, Tony Tomassi was kicked out of caucus and there is one vacancy.

And then there is Québec Solidaire, Quebec's fledging left-wing party. On Sunday, its only elected member, Amir Khadir, was on hand for the Duceppe gala.

Khadir first ran in an election as a Bloc candidate in Outremont in 2000 before moving on to become a founding member of Québec Solidaire. In the 2008 Quebec election, he became the first Québec Solidaire member to win a seat in the National Assembly.

Since then, he has impressed pundits with his hard work and has become one of the province's most popular political figures. PQ strategists prefer to dismiss Khadir's rise to prominence as an isolated occurrence or, at worst, as a passing fad. But then that was also the conventional wisdom that attended Duceppe's first election victory 20 years ago and he is still very much around to prove it wrong.

Marois is considered the best candidate for premier by 39 per cent of those surveyed, while 28 per cent would choose current premier Jean Charest, and 16 per cent would opt for Quebec Solidaire leader Amir Khadir, after distribution of the undecided votes.

"Pauline Marois is there, and Pauline Marois will become Premier, the first (female) premier in the history of Québec," said M. Duceppe at a press conference while attending the Vanier Cup in Québec City, Saturday afternoon. "As for me, I am working very hard to win a seventh victory. From there on, everything is possible. And the ultimate objective, both for the Bloc and the PQ, is to make Québec into a country. We'll be working together on that."

Ha, OK, sorry, that came out wrong. I was thinking in terms of provincial politics btw and also because I have lived in Montreal before and often hope to move back. Seriously, though, Charest seems loathsome these days and, as much as I like BQ/PQ/QS stances on other issues, it could be hard to swallow voting for a separatist party if I were there.

I suppose "federalist" and specifically "left-leaning federalist" were more precisely what I meant? I was working on the assumption that most anglophones are federalists but maybe that's outdated, I dunno.

Ha, OK, sorry, that came out wrong. I was thinking in terms of provincial politics btw and also because I have lived in Montreal before and often hope to move back. Seriously, though, Charest seems loathsome these days and, as much as I like BQ/PQ/QS stances on other issues, it could be hard to swallow voting for a separatist party if I were there.

That is a huge challenge that QS has to deal with, especially if it wants to make inroads within ethnic communities who are uneasy about sovereignty.

It's gotta suck to be an anglophone Quebecer, with the Liberals as your only federalist option.

Depends on how anally federalist an Anglo's to be--it isn't like voting for QS need be like African-Americans voting Republican, esp. as in practice, the more left-leaning one is, the less anally "White Rhodesian" federalist one is.

And besides, non-lefty Quebec Anglos can always default to an Equality Party-type protest movement, if necessary, I suppose.

I do hope that the NDP can create a Quebec wing-- it seems some serious discussion would be required with QS however as you would not want those two parties squaring off for less than 20% of the vote at the start...

Common economic/social positions are not the problem however. It comes down to the national vision for Quebec. I am not sure how far the NDP is from QS on this at the moment -- how to reconcile the role of the federal government. Indeed a vision of asymmetrical federalism would appear to be the only solution to make this work as in many provinces New Dems want a federal role in shared jurisdictions so that a provincial Con government cannot come in and throw out the farm. The idea is it would take a Con government at two levels to do the most long lasting damage. Quebec is of course confident that it does not need the Feds in that role since there are stronger social movements in Quebec to protect them in many respects. It may take an agreement on asymmetrical federalism to work but that would be illusive as I suspect the Cons in the rest of the country do not want to lose the decentralizing pull of Quebec and would never agree to it-- and there remains serious misunderstandings about what Canada and Quebec actually are and the relationships that formed Canada. In theory it is easier to govern a country with equal provinces and clear jurisdiction but in Canada the aspirations of the people do not lend themselves to agreement on what the Federal government is and the provinces have never been equal when it comes to history or the bargain-making that created Canada. An attempt to impose simplistic workable visions for Canada lead to a denial of either the nation of Quebec or the desire of other provinces to have a shared community in public policy.

I raise this because it is the elephant in the room challenging the making of a provincial party and a federal party of the same name viable in Quebec. The Liberal party works only because it is seen in the generic and of having no direct relationship with the Feds of the same name.

I do hope that the NDP can create a Quebec wing-- it seems some serious discussion would be required with QS however as you would not want those two parties squaring off for less than 20% of the vote at the start...

As it stands right now, there is no provincial NDP in Quebec, which allows people to support QS provincially and the NPD federally. Introduce a provincial party, the rules about not supporting another party come into play, and most of those activists will choose QS if they have to.

On the sovereignty question, the desire is still clearly alive, but I have the sense that Quebeckers don't want to be divided and polarized as has been in the past. It's worth noting that in the 2003 and 2007 provincial elections, the PQ did badly when the sovereignty issue was raised, and yet they came back in 2008 without highlighting the issue. Even though QS is sovereigntist, it seems to take a back-burner compared to other issues. If I lived in Quebec, why not just vote QS and vote "non" in a referendum?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Common economic/social positions are not the problem however. It comes down to the national vision for Quebec. I am not sure how far the NDP is from QS on this at the moment -- how to reconcile the role of the federal government. Indeed a vision of asymmetrical federalism would appear to be the only solution to make this work as in many provinces New Dems want a federal role in shared jurisdictions so that a provincial Con government cannot come in and throw out the farm. The idea is it would take a Con government at two levels to do the most long lasting damage. Quebec is of course confident that it does not need the Feds in that role since there are stronger social movements in Quebec to protect them in many respects. It may take an agreement on asymmetrical federalism to work but that would be illusive as I suspect the Cons in the rest of the country do not want to lose the decentralizing pull of Quebec and would never agree to it-- and there remains serious misunderstandings about what Canada and Quebec actually are and the relationships that formed Canada. In theory it is easier to govern a country with equal provinces and clear jurisdiction but in Canada the aspirations of the people do not lend themselves to agreement on what the Federal government is and the provinces have never been equal when it comes to history or the bargain-making that created Canada. An attempt to impose simplistic workable visions for Canada lead to a denial of either the nation of Quebec or the desire of other provinces to have a shared community in public policy.

Good point about the strong social movements.

As for the rest, I've often spoken out against the Quebec/ROC dichotomy that is often presented. It gives credence to the argument that Quebec is after "special priviledges." What it shows is that people do not understand their history. Nearly everyCanadian province has at one point threatened separation. At the time of Confederation, anti-Confederation sentiment was strong in Atlantic Canada, so strong that even in 1949, with all the major media on its side, the Confederation vote barely carried the day in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I think it has to be looked at in that context. From that point, we can have discussions with all the provinces and the First Nations, and I think with a little effort we can come up with a solution that respects provincial aspirations without breaking up the country.

Aristotle-- I am not sure where we can meet without an asymmetrical arrangement-- the reason is simply that there is no agreement on the role of the federal government particularly in terms of the spending power and shared jurisdiction-- such as health care.

I can't see Quebec being in favour of any use of the spending power in these areas or of any federal intrusion in to provincial jurisdiction while I also can't see other provinces agreeing to not have this. However, there are ways to set up the federal government so that both Quebec and other provinces get what they want out of the federal government through an asymmetrical arrangement. This is not about one wanting more or less-- transfers can be negotiated to address this. It is about where power gets held.

Why should a province that wants the feds to control standards fo health care have to give that up when only one province does not want that? And why should Quebec not be allowed to not have that intrusion if it does not want it? Quebec does not object to a role for the federal government in setting standards in the other 9 provinces.

Why not simply allow provinces to opt out of the federal standard by referendum? Then the federal government can go ahead and act in the shared jurisdiction but those provinces who want to opt out of that can simply hold a referendum. It is not clear to me that there should be any reason why the monetary transfer would be different-- in both cases the feds deliver money for health care and the provinces deliver the program. I have come to wonder why this is not approached much more simply.

I think most provinces in the rest of Canada would choose to have national standards and Quebec would opt out. And really-- what is wrong with that when you think about it? I am in favour of national standards and would vote for them but would not see any reason why they would be imposed on a province that did not want them.

Same goes for other programs. It is not a very difficult situation if you start from respecting provincial wishes to opt in or to opt out and to accept that there will be issues when most may opt in but a province if it held a referendum on the topic could opt out. And yes, all provinces could have the same option. I suspect most would not take it but the right would be the same for all-- the resulting asymmetrical situation would be a reflection of those choices and that would be democratic. And really most in Quebec are not terribly interested in what is exclusive federal jurisdiction-- they are wanting to assert authority with respect to shared and provincial jurisdiction.

Unionist-- The reason I would like there to be a provincial NDP is I think the name association would be helpful but I do agree that it could not compete the QS -- it would either eventually have to be some version or successor to QS or not happen.

A provincial NDP will not work in Québec. The simple reason is that it would be seen as as a subordinate to the Federal party, and not as an independent entity capable of speaking of its own voice against the Federal government. The PLQ have always tried to project themselves as a different party from the LPC, especially when they were both in power, and have largely managed this by playing on their own long history. The ADQ has had limited successes, but one (of the many) reasons for their downfall was the talks about an alliance with Harper's conservatives.

The greatest mistake you can make in Québec National politics (wording intended) is to appear to defend Federal interests. The name association with the NDP would be an obstacle, not a strength, unless you intend to go only after ultra-federalist votes (meaning someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec, as opposed to the mainstream federalists, à la Bourassa, who want more autonomy for Québec).

I'm not looking forward to the PQ taking over the government...Levesque must be spinning in his grave with what the PQ has mutated into...We'd probably be better off with Charest..Very,very sad to say.

The greatest mistake you can make in Québec National politics (wording intended) is to appear to defend Federal interests. The name association with the NDP would be an obstacle, not a strength, unless you intend to go only after ultra-federalist votes (meaning someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec, as opposed to the mainstream federalists, à la Bourassa, who want more autonomy for Québec).

I suppose that this ("someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec") is the position that adma was referring to upthread as "anally white Rhodesian"? Am I horribly naive if I ask why?

The greatest mistake you can make in Québec National politics (wording intended) is to appear to defend Federal interests. The name association with the NDP would be an obstacle, not a strength, unless you intend to go only after ultra-federalist votes (meaning someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec, as opposed to the mainstream federalists, à la Bourassa, who want more autonomy for Québec).

The "Liberal" name is a zillions times more toxic in Quebec in terms of associations with Trudeau and Chretien and being uber-federalist etc...than is the NDP name - which i suspect has a benign image in Quebec - and the Quebec Liberals have won three straight elections!

The greatest mistake you can make in Québec National politics (wording intended) is to appear to defend Federal interests. The name association with the NDP would be an obstacle, not a strength, unless you intend to go only after ultra-federalist votes (meaning someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec, as opposed to the mainstream federalists, à la Bourassa, who want more autonomy for Québec).

I suppose that this ("someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec") is the position that adma was referring to upthread as "anally white Rhodesian"? Am I horribly naive if I ask why?

I wrote my piece from the view-point of francophone Québécois. An ultra-federalist is basically someone who is even more federalist han the Liberals, who would gladly watch the Federal government intrude even more on the Québec government's powers and responsabilities. For the francophones, they are a small minority, since we tend to identify with Québec first (or only); for the anglophones, probably a majority or a plurality, since they tend to identify with Canada.

As for "Rhodesian", I imagine they are a step beyond: people who want a return to the anglophone economic domination and/or privileges in Québec, people who live in Québec their whole lives without learning any French and expect to be served in English everywhere they go. At least that's what I understand from the term: I could be mistaken.

The greatest mistake you can make in Québec National politics (wording intended) is to appear to defend Federal interests. The name association with the NDP would be an obstacle, not a strength, unless you intend to go only after ultra-federalist votes (meaning someone who puts the interests of Canada before those of Québec, as opposed to the mainstream federalists, à la Bourassa, who want more autonomy for Québec).

The "Liberal" name is a zillions times more toxic in Quebec in terms of associations with Trudeau and Chretien and being uber-federalist etc...than is the NDP name - which i suspect has a benign image in Quebec - and the Quebec Liberals have won three straight elections!

To be fair, they would have lost their second election easily if Boisclair wasn't even more toxic than they were: homophobia might have played a part, but his cocaine habits, while he was a minister, made him extremely unpopular. The Federal liberal name is very tainted, that we agree on. After all, hasn't the NDP reached their level in the Québec polls? But the PLQ's second greatest success has been to give the impression of being completely independent from the LPC.

(For reference, since it's not relevent to this discussion, my opinion is that the PLQ's greatest success has been to make people believe that the other parties are as corrupted as they are.)

In any case, it is not the NDP name that is a problem, it's the impressions that a QNDP, created by the Federal party, would be subordinated, or even submissive, to the Federal party, especially one who has the reputation of being centralist. You do not want to appear to take your orders from Ottawa.

Check Québec political history: has any National party been created from a Federal party?

But the PLQ's second greatest success has been to give the impression of being completely independent from the LPC.

Which is also an advantage the current-day BC Liberals hold, of course.

Remember that the PLQ has always been a "grand coalition" entity that can even draw "soft Bloccers" (i.e. people who vote federally BQ out of regionalist more than sovereigntist grounds)--and Robert Bourassa knew how to harness that impulse, much as Paul Martin had a way with soft ReformAllianceConservatives...

Why should a province that wants the feds to control standards fo health care have to give that up when only one province does not want that? And why should Quebec not be allowed to not have that intrusion if it does not want it? Quebec does not object to a role for the federal government in setting standards in the other 9 provinces.

Why not simply allow provinces to opt out of the federal standard by referendum? Then the federal government can go ahead and act in the shared jurisdiction but those provinces who want to opt out of that can simply hold a referendum. It is not clear to me that there should be any reason why the monetary transfer would be different-- in both cases the feds deliver money for health care and the provinces deliver the program. I have come to wonder why this is not approached much more simply.

For one, as I said, national standards prevent the provinces being played off against one another by corporate interests. The other is that national standards ensure that federal health dollars directed at Quebec actually work for the Quebec health system instead of lining the pockets of the private sector. Besides, why would any government not set conditions when giving money to lower levels of government?

Besides, having federal standards didn't seem to hurt the "non" side in the 1980 Quebec referendum, and it was the undoing of those exact federal standards in the Armageddon Budget of 1995 that nearly drove Quebec out.

Since when does a Quebecker need to be "represented" in cabinet (or anywhere) by someone whose language of origin is the same as theirs? How about having one's interests represented?

If that's true, then francophones needn't be represented in Harper's cabinet either. Besides, anglos do have an interest in seeing their language represented, and acknowledged, at a Senior level. Otherwise, it sucks.